Workplace Dating

This article makes a very good case that the taboo on workplace dating, however well-intended, is misguided. I remember reading an article 30 years ago that made the point that people spend a lot of time at work. If you didn't happen to meet your life partner in college or shortly after, the workplace is a very good bet, given the time spent and potential commonality of interests and background.

Now that online dating is proving to be a poor substitute for IRL, this makes more sense than ever.

I. Hate. Organized. Gambling.

Alarming and depressing article on the explosive arrival of app-based sports betting. I hate organized gambling. I hate it intellectually--it is the triumph of hope over math. I hate it aesthetically--the trappings of gambling, from garish smoke-filled casinos to grimy OTBs to convenience store lottery lines--is soul-crushing. I hate its social effects. And now, also hate it for overshadowing the sporting events themselves.

Assortive effect of online dating

How much do online dating services to "the big sort"? By no means am I thinking only of political beliefs. Education, income, religion, interests--it seems like this might be a big consequence.

Assortive Mating's Contribution to Income Inequality

For a long time, I've suspected that "assortive mating"--marrying someone from a similar socioeconomic background, educational institution and/or vocation--was an important contributor to income inequality. Far from the only one, and the factors are probably multiplicative, such that if the other factors were diminished, the contribution of assortive mating would be proportionately diminished. But nevertheless significant and worth considering.

This article makes the point, and claims statistically that something like 25% of income inequality may be explained by the contribution of assortive mating.

Ann Marie Slaughter Is My Hero

(Heroine? Do we still say that, outside of discussions of pre-20th century literature?)

From Freakonomics Interview: 

SLAUGHTER: The book is about okay, we’re stuck. I mean, it’s Unfinished Business: Women Men Work Family, and the unfinished business is the unfinished business of the movement for full equality between men and women. And in a nutshell, what I’m arguing is that if we’re going to get to real equality between men and women, we have to focus less on women and more on elevating the value of care and expanding the choices and roles for men. And that’s sort of counterintuitive, right? Because what we’ve been doing is, we measure our progress in the women’s movement by how many women CEOs we have, women leaders of all kinds, women politicians. And I’m all for having more women in high places. Don’t get me wrong. I’m all for it. We need it. But that metric and that focus is not going to get us there. Because it’s leaving a huge number of women out — all the women at the bottom — and it’s assuming that you can get to equality between men and women by changing women’s roles but not changing men’s roles.
DUBNER: Right. You also, the phrase you use is that we need to “resocialize men,” which as a man sounds vaguely threatening, but not really. But, but you write about not only adult men who are in the workforce and maybe those CEOs that we’re talking about, but also young men, boys, and how they should think about the future work world and the future family world, as well. So talk to the men for a minute. This program is probably I’m guessing now roughly 70 percent male listeners. So this is a great platform.
SLAUGHTER: Oh, that’s so interesting.
DUBNER: What were some of the kind of basic signposts that we need to rearrange, or get rid of, or maybe the new ones we need to have written?
SLAUGHTER: That’s great. So let me start by saying how I got to this realization that we have to — I think I prefer, “expand choices and roles” to “resocialize,” which does sound vaguely Orwellian. So here’s what I realized: I have two sons, and I looked at my sons and I thought, “You know, if I’d had a daughter we’d be raising her 100 percent differently than the way my mother was raised, and even differently than I was raised,” although my father was very progressive and he raised me to have a career. But if I looked at my sons, I thought, “I’m raising my sons pretty much exactly the way my father was raised.” I mean, we’re raising them to have a more active role as fathers. My father never changed a diaper. Certainly my husband changed plenty. And I expect my sons to. But we’re still saying to men, “Your worth in society is a function of your breadwinning. It’s a function of how much money you can make and how high you can rise in your career.” And that is a very limited set of choices. It’s the flip side of saying to women, when my mother was raised you know, “Your worth in society depends on can you get married and can you have children.” And my point is all of us should have access to both.  As a woman I absolutely want to be able to compete. I want to have a career. That’s been fabulous. But I sure don’t want to do that at the expense of also being a mother and a wife and a sister and a daughter. And so, what I now say to my sons is, “If you believe in equality and you marry a woman or a man, whatever, and you believe that you’re going to support that woman’s career, then it may require you being the lead parent and your spouse to be the lead breadwinner.” And that’s been the situation in our marriage. And they understand that I couldn’t have a big career unless Andy played that role. So that’s the place where I’m really saying to men, if you believe in equality, it can’t be, “Okay, I believe in equality but I’m going to take every promotion I get, and if you get a promotion, I’m not going to move for you.”

Community Library as Forerunner and Exemplar in "Sharing Economy"

I've started tutoring one night at Rondo public library in St. Paul. Rondo is a terrific, large library that is buzzing with activity. In my brief time there, I have seen that in addition to tutoring, it hosts ESL lessons, they have a drop-in legal clinic, and all kinds of other community stuff. It seems to be a center of community life and activity that suburban libraries, such as our local R.H. Stafford, however nice, will never be.

I kind of think that the community library was part of the "sharing economy" before that was "a thing".

A Scholarly Response to ‘Tiger Mom’: Happiness Matters, Too

I won't recap the Amy Chua "Battle-Hynm of the Tiger Mother"story, if you are not up on it, it is easily Googled. I do think the hardcore "Tiger" style is unappealing, and often a mistake. As with so many things, the best course lies in blending best practices. The extreme discipline, the rote-ness, the un-Christian "scarcity principle" that underlies the idea that nothing short of being the top student, is all terribly misguided, IMO.

Much, much better to inculcate emotional intelligence and above all, a love of life-long learning. Not learning and scholarship for the sake of top grades or clearing admissions hurdles, but simply because it is: A) enriching; B) ultimately, temporally rewarding in unpredictable ways. More of Confucian view, perhaps?

Here are a couple of good responses: Brooks, Tatlow.

How Long Till Location-Sharing Makes Cheating Impossible?

Frictionless, always-on location-sharing has been possible at least since the earliest days of Android (2008). I have been surprised that it hasn't become more common, but I have to think it will. The Google+ implementation is very nice, and there are other options as well.

From the time I first discovered it, I wondered what impact this would have on relationship cheaters. The analogy would be the surge in spouse-installed PC spyware--such as Who, What, When--in the early, pre-cloud, pre-social network days of home computers.

While I doubted by generation would embrace location-sharing, I figured "digital natives" would. Hasn't happened as fast as I would have thought. But still, I have to think it will happen. And once always-on location-sharing becomes normative, how do you refuse or temporarily suspend your significant other? That alone would obviously be the proverbial "red flag".

(I suppose I can also foresee partially-effective countermeasures, apps that interfere with or false-report location. But if you are using something like the built in Google+, that could be hard.)

How Concerts Have Changed

Went to my first large-scale rock concert in decades, with my daughter. The National, it was fun and pretty good. Interesting how things have changed:

• No smoke--of any kind
• Wide range of ages
• Photos are allowed
• Band endearingly thanks you for listening

Remember when cell phones were banned in gyms?

This article talks about a bar that has preemptively banned Google Glass. Made me think of the progression of cell phones...sometime around 2002, when cell phones had become very common, the YMCA I go to "banned" using them on the exercise floor. That rule was more or less respected. Then a couple of years later, as cell phone cameras became the norm, the rule didn't change, but the level of posting was increased, including the locker rooms.

Here's the funny thing...now that phones have gotten more powerful, and cameras, even video, could easily be used surreptitiously, respect for the rule has fallen by the wayside. Phones are so mutli-purpose, that people use them everywhere, including the locker room for listenting to music, answering texts, who knows what else, maybe using exercise tracker apps.

Anyway, assuming Google Glass or something like it catches on, I predict a similar cycle of resistance then surrender.

Speaking of Manning Up on Vasectomies...

(per previous post) In fact, this would have worked very well in the recent Modern Family episode, where Jay takes Phil to get a vasectomy, and Phil is chickening out.

I really didn't like that ending. Phil is waiting in pre-op, having finally ginned up his courage, only for Claire to waltz in and talk him out of it--because she's "not sure" she doesn't want any more children! This is Claire, mother of three, one college-aged, who is herself--how old? In the show, she looks like an extremely attractive 34 or so. But let's do the math. If she were 22 when Haley was born, she'd be at least 40. That's probably the best case, she could be older. Sure, not out of the question for conceiving, but really, she is not in the "just in case we change our mind in a few years" camp. If there were ANY QUESTION of having another baby--which, to be clear, I think is a ridiculous proposition--she should have already been on it.

Then there is the question of Phil's age. He looks even older, pushing 50. Yes, I'm aware that plenty of men don't have children till well into their forties and beyond. But that is usually men who have no kids, or are on their second family. Very few American men of 45 with three kids are raring to have a baby. The reason it usually happens is carelessness! Which brings me full circle...men foolishly avoid vasectomies enough as it is, without any encouragement from pop culture. The show could have handled it so much better.

"Man Up" - Sexist Usage

I really do not care for the phrase "man up". As in "don't take that from a girl--man up and show her you're the boss!"Although it is no doubt used sometimes to exhort to noble actions--"man up and pay your child support"--it has, to me, an unmistakeable air of schoolyard masculinity and machismo. I find it to be rather sexist, especially when used by women.

In researching this blog post, I came across this NYT article, which I think covers the term quite nicely (though in the non-judgmental approach common to both journalism and descriptive dictionaries). I do think the military usage, with a different meaning, is likely the origin of the term.

Final note...like many edgy terms, it may be acceptable in certain situations, especially when used between in-group members...I think the perfect situation would be for one buddy to exhort another to "Man up and get a vasectomy!".

What the Steve Jobs profitability paradox reminds me of

I wrote about the paradox of Apple's profitability, under Steve Jobs--maximizing profitability (or shareholder value) seemed to take a backseat to product excellence. Paradoxically, though, through the relentless, uncompromising, somewhat messianic pursuit of profit excellence, in about a decade, Apple grew from being a mid-cap company to vying for the largest market cap on the globe.

This makes me think of the "paradox of happiness". Those who dedicate their life to the pursuit of happiness usually achieve the opposite--a sad, unfulfilling life chasing empty pleasures. Those who dedicate their life to a higher calling--duty, faith, honor,  service--often find consistent, lasting happiness as a byproduct.

Basketball Effective FG Percentage, and Other Statistical Modernizations

Backwardness offends me, especially when there is absolutely no reason or justification for it. Happens often with popular "statistics". I'm not talking about mildly complicated statistics, as might be taught in an intro stats class. I am talking about very basic numbers and metrics.

Basketball Field-Goal Percentage
The 3-point field goal has been part of mainstream basketball for about 30 years. It is an important aspect of the game. Yet the ancient statistic of field-goal percentage--originating before the 3-pointer had been dreamt of--is still the common yardstick of shooting performance. Why?! The more useful statistic would be the "effective field goal percentage", which simply weights the 3-pointer 50% more. It is SO obvious, I do it mentally whenever they flash a players 2 and 3-point stats.

GPAs
This has got to be one of the silliest traditions. Typically, grade-point averages (GPAs) are calculated using a scale where A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1, with possible interpolated weights for + and - grades. With ranges for each letter: A=90-100, B=80-89, C=70-79. So let's see...students take tests, and get numerical grades. Those numerical grades are summed and averaged. That result is then placed in a rough range that translates to a letter. Then, those letters are re-translated to a GPA. Crazy stuff--lots of extra computation, all the while removing resolution! The thing that drives me crazy is that this system is universally accepted by very smart people!!!

Stock Quotes
This is a bright spot. For years, stocks were quited in binary fractions--down to sixteenths, or perhaps thirty-seconds. Ridiculous stuff, especially in the age of the digital computer. Yet it persisted. This may be a special case, because I think part of the reason it persisted was entrenched interests--brokers and dealers  benefited from the rounding. Nevertheless, at some point I think in the 1990s, the practice was eliminated. So, progress is possible!

A Sharing Society

I really like the sentiment of this time article, "Today's Smart Choice: Don't Own. Share". In fact, I've written about this topic several times . There is also a book out: What's Mine Is Yours: The Rise of Collaborative Consumption. (In that spirit, I have just reserved my copy from the library.)

No Good Comes from Fabrications

This is an interesting article on Simon Wiesenthal, about whom I have long heard not known very little beyond the moniker "Nazi hunter".This is the part that really interests me:

It is thus unfortunate that his fabrications and falsehoods now threaten to overshadow his real accomplishments...Wiesenthal's most egregious distortion of the historical record and Segev's response to it. In the 1970s, Wiesenthal began to refer to "eleven million victims" of the Holocaust, six million Jews and five million non-Jews, but the latter number had no basis in historical reality...When Israeli historians Yehuda Bauer and Yisrael Gutman challenged Wiesenthal on this point, he admitted that he had invented the figure of eleven million victims in order to stimulate interest in the Holocaust among non-Jews. He chose five million because it was almost, but not quite, as large as six million...Any falsification with respect to the Holocaust, whatever its purpose may be, gives comfort and solace, not to speak of ammunition, to Holocaust deniers.

I agree. You just see this strong, human tendency to spin, to twist, to fabricate and distort played out over and over. Of course contemporary pols do it all the time, but you see it often in professional life. The glib managerial response that smooths over the question in today's meeting sows confusion, distrust and cynicism when later shown unjustified.

January at the Gym: The Attack of the Resolutionaries

Amusing article, that will immediately ring true to all veteran exercisers. I think the point below captures a truth about gyms:

Humans have a need for rituals and routine. Humans in gyms display this need in a hyper-developed, 'roidy kind of way, which makes sense: The gym is the place we go to control one of the few things in life we can control (dumpiness) and so it becomes the place where we become the people who try to control everything else (diva-ness!). The gym is a microcosmic symbol for how splendidly the world could work, if only everyone would wait their turn, properly hydrate and remember to wipe down whatever they touched with a lemony Pine-Sol solution.

My own personal peeve--which does not apply exclusively to newbies--relates to waiting for machines. There is a certain body language that one needs to exhibit, to indicate that one is waiting for a machine. It needs to be subtle, so as not to inappropriately crowd the person currently on the machine (unless of course they are resting between sets, in which case they are breaking the rules and being unfair themselves, and deserve to have pressure applied--up to and including crossing the non-verbal barrier, of being asked outright "okay if I work in?"). But it needs to be clear enough to inform the sequencing decision of other patrons. It is frustrating to think you are next in line for a machine, only to have someone come flying from across the gym to claim it. There is an instinctive art that most people seem to grasp, but a few are either unconsciously or willfully oblivious to. Here is a list to help them:

Do's and Dont's:

1. Don't rest between sets. Ever. Even if the gym seems empty, discipline yourself to clear off the machine, to give others a chance to work in. Don't make them ask.
2. As a corollary, don't "guard" the machine. This involves complying with the letter of the law, by getting up off the machine, but violating its spirit, by hovering so close that another person can not gracefully access the machine.
3. Do realize that proximity is very important. You can't signify you are waiting for a machine if you are across the gym.
4. Direction is also important. You need to be generally facing the machine you want, and without staring, you need to let you glance drift toward it occasionally. 
5. Which brings up the next rule--while waiting, be aware of others. If you sense that they are trying to evaluate whether there is a wait for it, you need to give off clear signals that you are in line. But not aggressively. Your operating assumption should be that they are not competitors who must be actively deterred, but rather rule-abiding fellow exercisers of goodwill, who, like you, are merely seeking to optimize their time.
6. You absolutely can't be waiting for one machine while you are on another. Not even if they are right next to each other. (A possible exception--some gyms may try to set a priority for those who work in sequence. In my opinion, this is both undesirable--because different people have different ideas of the proper sequence--and just leads to disputes. But if it is the posted letter of the law at your gym, you should respect it.)
7. Don't exercise in packs. It isn't fair for 2-4 people to monopolize a machine by trading off sets. (Note: this probably varies with the culture of the gym, in hardcore, male-oriented facilities this may be the norm. You will know if you are in the wrong place.)

"Demography and Economic Destiny"

Interesting article. This might explain the timing of the economic dynamism of Japan and then China:

Falling birthrates do not instantly damage an economy. Indeed, at first, they often do just the opposite. A first-order effect of a society's producing fewer children is that a rising share of the population occupies the prime productive years of young adulthood. Also, with fewer children around to demand attention, vast reserves of female labor are freed up, and there are more resources available to invest in each remaining child, so that, for example, literacy rates improve. Japan experienced this demographic "sweet spot” in the 1960s and 1970s, and China is experiencing it today. 

then

Perhaps there is an economic system that can preserve prosperity even in the face of an aging, stagnating population, but it has not yet been devised. It is no coincidence that modern industrial capitalism emerged amid the population explosion of late 18th-century England or that it flourished most in the rapidly growing United States. A young, growing population creates more demand for products and a larger supply of labor. By encouraging people to look for more efficient ways to provide food, energy, and other essentials, it also spurs innovation and entrepreneurism.

There are many possible reasons for this iron law. One, of course, is that aging workers and investors tend to be less flexible and more risk-averse, having more to lose and less time to recover than do their younger counterparts. Both common sense and a vast literature in finance and psychology support the claim that as we travel toward old age, we become more reluctant to take risks with our careers and more set in our ways.

It seems like countering this trend is a high priority. If people are living and working longer, so that 50 is the new 35, then maybe they can learn to be less risk averse at 50!

Retirement Considered Harmful

I have recently come around to thinking that retirement may not be so healthy, so I found this article interesting:

The two economists call their paper "Mental Retirement," and their argument has intrigued behavioral researchers. Data from the United States, England and 11 other European countries suggest that the earlier people retire, the more quickly their memories decline.

Sharing Stuff

But some scholars say that the Internet — by fostering collaboration on a communal, open platform — has changed the way Americans think about sharing and ownership. Collaborative habits online are beginning to find expression in the real world.

Interesting. I am a big proponent of sharing. My favorite example is lawnmowers. There is absolutely no reason every suburban family should own, and house, their own mower. Three families could share a mower without even breaking a sweat.